> I don't think this is the operational sense of NLP as pursued by
> applying linguistic theories in narrow AI setting. (e.g. Dynamic
> Syntax, DRT, HPSG, ...)
but we want to apply NLP generally (i.e. not just in a narrow AI setting)
> I was writing in context of Mark Waser language-specific solutions (as
> I understand them), which if wished could be later reused in boarder
> contexts.
Actually, to convert from one language-specific version to another would be
pretty trivial I believe. I think that all it would require would be tagging
each word with a language, a languageA to languageB dictionary, and a quick
overhaul of the parser and generator to make the link types be language
specific. And yes, I *am* saying/claiming that I believe that this approach
will pretty much automatically give you natural language translation.
>> In other words, although there is enough special-purpose hardware in there to
>> make it make sense to call language a "module", the full capability is so
>> interwoven with general cognition that it can't be separated across a
>> bottleneck.
I agree strongly with Josh here . . . .
> We stumble here on the meaning of capacity in this context. For
> example, a general GUI library is not expected to be generally
> intelligent.
because I don't think that a general NLP is possible without general
intelligence (again, of a *very* specific level).
= = = = = = = = = =
One of the things that I may have not been clear about saying (that is
absolutely critical) is that I don't believe that NLP is possible *unless* you
have a built-in world model. And, I don't know how you would have a world
model without a certain amount of general intelligence. Fortunately, as I've
stated in a previous email -- "I'm also getting the impression (or developing a
stronger opinion) that there is far more declarative knowledge than actual
rules at this level" -- with the importance of this being that I believe that
declarative knowledge can be harvested while (initially, at least) rules are
going to have to be hand-coded.
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lukasz Stafiniak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] rule-based NL system
> On 4/28/07, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I disagree with this two ways. First, it's fairly well accepted among
>> mainstream AI researchers that full NL competence is "AI-complete", i.e. that
>> human-level intelligence is a prerequisite for NL.
>
> I don't think this is the operational sense of NLP as pursued by
> applying linguistic theories in narrow AI setting. (e.g. Dynamic
> Syntax, DRT, HPSG, ...)
>
>> Secondly, even the parsing
>> part of NLP is part of a more general recursive sequence
>> understander/generator, which is used for doing complex tasks with the hands
>> (and the conjecture is that language bootstrapped itself on this capability).
>>
> I was writing in context of Mark Waser language-specific solutions (as
> I understand them), which if wished could be later reused in boarder
> contexts.
>
>> In other words, although there is enough special-purpose hardware in there to
>> make it make sense to call language a "module", the full capability is so
>> interwoven with general cognition that it can't be separated across a
>> bottleneck.
>>
>> Josh
>>
> We stumble here on the meaning of capacity in this context. For
> example, a general GUI library is not expected to be generally
> intelligent.
>
> -----
> This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
> To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
>
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
